According to the report, China will add an additional 1583 GW to its total power generation capacity, to reach 2707 GW by 2030. The nation’s electricity consumption will grow by 5 percent or 88 GW per year, BNEF said, pointing out that this is equivalent to adding the UK’s total installed capacity each year.

Renewable power sources are projected to contribute over half of this new capacity growth, reaching the same capacity level as coal by 2030. Coal-fired power generation will decrease from 67 percent in 2012 to 44 percent in 2030, or 25 GW annually, while renewable generation will increase from 27 percent in 2012 to 44 percent in 2030, at 47 GW per year.

In order to support such large-scale growth in the power sector, investment on the order of US $159 billion per year, or 2 percent of China’s 2012 GDP, will be required, and half of that amount will be invested in renewables – around $77 billion annually, with a shift toward investment in distributed projects also predicted.

In addition China will need to invest $57 billion annually in supporting infrastructure, the analysis showed, with $1024 billion required for long-distance transmission lines, smart grid, energy storage and demand response systems – around one-third of the total investment in generation capacity.

Continuous improvement in the economics of wind and solar photovoltaics (PV) due to falling technology costs and an expected commercial-sector uptake in distributed solar were identified as key reasons for renewable energy’s predicted rapid growth. The growing cost of coal-fired plants due to environmental controls will also play a part, the report said.

However, BNEF warned that certain events could significantly change its forecast. For example, there could be a Chinese shale gas boom at the end of this decade, resulting in very low gas prices (lower than $5/MMBtu). And if China implements an emissions trading scheme, the report said, emissions will peak as soon as 2023 at a low average carbon price of $16/tCO2e from 2017-2030, which could result in a decrease in new-build coal plants and their replacement by renewables and natural gas.

Milo Sjardin, BNEF’s head of Asia Pacific, said in a statement that China’s energy sector faces “extreme uncertainty” and that the nation’s future energy mix “depends on a number of big questions, questions on which one can still only speculate: the cost at which China may be able to extract its shale gas reserves, the potential impact on fracking and thermal generation of water constraints; and potential accelerations in climate and environmental policy, including a potential price on carbon.”

And Michael Liebreich, BNEF chief executive, added that "It is hard to underestimate the significance of China’s energy consumption growth and its evolving generation mix. The impacts will reach far beyond China and have major implications for the rest of the world, ranging from coal and gas prices to the cost and market size for renewable energy technologies – not to mention the health of the planet’s environment.”

Among the report’s recommendations for how China should manage its expected power sector growth was a call for Chinese grid operators to establish partnerships with grid operators worldwide, drawing on their experience in integrating and managing high levels of renewables. And the expected rapid growth of distributed PV will require increased focus on the distribution and end-user side, rather than on transmission, requiring more and faster investment in distribution automation, distributed storage and demand response, the report said.

The Gulf Stream is continuous but how do you get a cable 100s of miles all the way out there to tap into it?

Excellent question. By the way, I wish you well with your Gentec venturi invention.

"In the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico the current is gradually narrowed, and its velocity increases to more than 3.5 knots (4 miles [6.5 km] per hour) as it passes through the Straits of Florida.

As it turns north between Florida and the Bahamas, the Florida Current flows at a depth of some 2,600 feet (790 m) and then follows the continental slope beyond the edge of the shelf. Velocities gradually decrease to about one knot off Cape Hatteras."

"The Gulf Stream is a warm water current that begins off the tip of Florida, where it is called the Florida Current, and ends off the coast of Ireland. In North America, the 'Stream' passes closest to shore off North Carolina's Outer Banks. The exact distance varies but can be as little as 12 miles.

The north wall of the Gulf Stream can be reached fairly easily from the fishing ports of Manteo, N.C. or from Hatteras which is some 70 miles further south."

http://www.oceanwanderers.com/NCarolina.html

We can drill for oil at depths of over 5,000 feet but we can't place a turbine 12 to 70 miles from the coast at 2,600 feet?

We can build submarines with sealed propeller shafts that operate for several decades well below 5,000 feet under the ocean surface but we can't engineer a current turbine that can send power through a 12 to 70 mile cable along the ocean bottom?

Of course we can! Over 80 years ago we had laid telephone cables across the entire Atlantic ocean.

Both the power cable distances and the deep ocean current turbine technology are well within our engineering ability now.

We do not need fossil fuels. We do not have to wait 37 years for the oil to run out or for coal to finish damaging our biosphere.

I hope your invention is part of the mix of technologies that will help the inevitable transition to 100% renewable energy. The point I wish to stress is that renewable energy, unlike fossil fuels, has far more potential than our total energy needs now.

The Gulf Stream is continuous but how do you get a cable 100s of miles all the way out there to tap into it?

I am no lover of fossil fuels which is why I have invented Gentec venturi, a tidal stream system that generates 10 times more firm electricity 24-7-365; and a mobile wave energy system, Gentec WaTS that will generate 2400 times more electricity 24-7-365 than a fixed near shore WEC.

Now it maybe that you think that just breaking even for an investor is brilliant but 10 and 2400 times more electricity respectively from tidal streams and deep ocean pelagic wavepower with very low CAPEX and medium OPEX will make investors £billions.

Why, you may ask, are these devices not in the water already - it is because I am prepared to wait until the gullible realise that solar does not work at night, and wind turbines do not generate when there is no wind and TSGs do not generate in real time at slack water.

One day ALL the world's electricity will be generated thermally from renewable heat using my system or a very close relative with the vital by-product of desalinated water. Fossil fuels such as coal and gas may run out as early as 2030 - then what?

EROEI , as in "energy" IS the key determinant used by venture capitalists to fund an energy extraction venture. It is clear that you are unfamiliar with energy economics.

As to the cost effectiveness of renewable energy versus fossil fuels, your statement that "without subsidies there would be no ROI at all in renewables because of the low outputs and low wholesale turnover." is disinformation.

And finally, your statement about currents is embarrassingly ignorant. Tidal currents reverse but OCEAN CURRENTS off the east coast of the USA (i.e. the Gulf Stream) never stop. Do you know why? It's because of lunar gravity and the earth's rotation. I somehow don't believe the moon or the earth are going to stop doing their thing for a few million years, at least.

"The Gulf Stream is the fastest ocean current in the world with peak velocities near 2m/s."
http://kingfish.coastal.edu/gulfstream/p2a.htm

A G Gelbert posted "Even Charles Hall (no defender of renewable energy), the creator of the EROEI (ENERGY RETURN ON ENERGY INVESTED) formula stated in his SUNY study that wind turbines have an EROEI of 18:1 at 1.5 MW and the return increases as the turbine size increases (they are now up to 7.5 MW)."

I was talking about Money return on money invested not EROEI which is a different thing altogether!

He also posted "And photovoltaic has an even higher EROEI. To put that in context both coal and gasoline have a lower EROEI without the fossil fuel subsidies."

See above

He wrote "Undersea current has, unlike your wrong assumption, huge potential because it is close to large cities (smaller transmission line losses) and is available 24/7. "

Undersea current stops and reverses every 6.21 hours or so can hardly be considered a 24/7 resource. Real time tidal stream generators discard around 7/8ths of the resource and may convert about 30% of the remaining 1/8th into pretty worthless pulses of intermittent electricity with little or no monetary value without massive subsidies from gullible politicians who want to be seen to be green!

"So if you want to talk about government hand outs, look at fossil fuels for massive amounts of swag taken by the government and given to fossil fuel polluters."

That old trick of diverting blame somewhere else - without subsidies there would be no ROI at all in renewables because of the low outputs and low wholesale turnover.

Anonymous said, "The reason why there are no investors in renewables is that you cannot make a return on investments".

Even Charles Hall (no defender of renewable energy), the creator of the EROEI (ENERGY RETURN ON ENERGY INVESTED) formula stated in his SUNY study that wind turbines have an EROEI of 18:1 at 1.5 MW and the return increases as the turbine size increases (they are now up to 7.5 MW).

And photovoltaic has an even higher EROEI. To put that in context both coal and gasoline have a lower EROEI without the fossil fuel subsidies.

Undersea current has, unlike your wrong assumption, huge potential because it is close to large cities (smaller transmission line losses) and is available 24/7.

So if you want to talk about government hand outs, look at fossil fuels for massive amounts of swag taken by the government and given to fossil fuel polluters.

•Fossil fuels are subsidized at nearly 6 times the rate of renewable energy. From 2002 to 2008, the US Government gave the mature fossil fuel industry over $72 billion in subsidies, while investments in the emerging renewable industry totaled $12.2 billion.

•The fossil fuel energy industry does not need taxpayer subsidies. In 2011, the Big Five oil companies alone made $137 billion in profits. During the first quarter of 2012, the Big Five oil companies earned a combined $33.5 billion, or $368 million per day.

•Unlike renewable energy incentives which periodically expire and require Congress to approve extensions, the fossil fuel industry has dozens of subsidies permanently engrained in the tax code from decades of successful lobbying. In 2011, the oil, gas, and coal industries spent a combined $167 million on lobbying the federal government.

- See more at: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/end-polluter-welfare/#sthash.jKImCcAM.dpuf

ANONYMOUS
August 30, 2013

James -You just got lucky - Consider this.

Investors in existing tidal stream and wave technology have zero chance of making any money at all. Did you know that tidal stream generators convertjust 3.6% of the resource into electricity? Investing £18 million in a 1MW machine will earn about £10 per annum by the time maintenance and other overheads are deducted.

You made a profit ONLY because some deluded government shelled out £millions in subsidies in support of pretty worthless 'technology'.

Gentec venturi will dieliver 10 times more electricity from tidal streams.

There's no return on investment in renewable energy? Somebody should send Elon Musk, et. al. an email. I've held Solar City for a short time and can't complain about the return I've made. I was then late to the party on Tesla but still have no complaints about my return. And what about failures such as Solyndra, Evergreen Solar and Energy Conversion Devices? The problem is not an outmoded technology by any means but a decrease in the cost of production of solar panels so that companies with large legacy costs are unable to keep up combined with cheap imported panels from China. Here's hoping Chinese solar companies concentrate on their domestic demand so that American companies have a chance in America. Here's also hoping this board has a minimal number or Tea Party adherents and Obama rodeo clown fans who wouldn't be able to understand the issue.

ANONYMOUS
August 30, 2013

The reason why there are no investors in renewables is that you cannot make a return on investments

Steven, Lewis was addressing energy worldwide. Seriously, watch one of his lectures. They're very broad and informative, if rather depressing.

ANONYMOUS
August 29, 2013

The author writes: "Coal-fired power generation will decrease from 67 percent in 2012 to 44 percent in 2030, or 25 GW annually, while renewable generation will increase from 27 percent in 2012 to 44 percent in 2030, at 47 GW per year."

If we accept these projections, once we adjust for the different capacity factors it will still mean that energy produced from new coal generation will exceed energy produced from new renewable generation. This is an ominous projection. By 2030 we should be hoping to be decommission significant coal fired generators, not still be building them at a rapid pace.
Steven

ANONYMOUS
August 29, 2013

Norm writes: "Keith, I suggest looking up Cal Tech's Nathan Lewis. He makes the point that for nuclear power to become humanity's only energy source, we will have to commission a new 1GW plant every day for the next 50 years, ..."

Let's look at some real data. The US electrical generating capacity (ref:http://www.eia.gov/electricity/capacity/) in 2011 was about 1051 GW much of which operates at a much lower capacity factor than nuclear power (the 101 GW of nuclear capacity is 9.6% of the total but provides 19-20% of yearly electrical needs). At a GW/day we could reach this much new capacity in less than 3 years and it would supply about double our current amount of electricity. Electricity is about 20% of total energy consumption in the US so at the quoted rate we could generate all our needed energy (although not necessarily at the time we wanted to consume it) in less than 8 years using nuclear power, whereas a decent reactor can last 60+ years. Clearly, Lewis's comment was hyperbolic. Furthermore, the size of our energy needs is not a good argument against any particular technology. At typical capacity factors we would need to build 5 times as much solar PV as nuclear power to meet our nominal needs (ignoring the considerable problems of intermittency). At the current world production rate for PV it would take several hundred years to meet nominal US energy needs. Is this any less daunting a statement than the one for nuclear power?

Keith, I suggest looking up Cal Tech's Nathan Lewis. He makes the point that for nuclear power to become humanity's only energy source, we will have to commission a new 1GW plant every day for the next 50 years, i.e., about as long as each one lasts before it must be decommissioned and replaced. We can't even find long term storage for the current radioactive waste.

China has shown willingness and political ability to invest in renewables. If the ball ever left our court, it will soon be back.